Existence of God

[belovedwolfofgod]

Hey Cosmo, I finally got it done. Sorry its late.

Existence of God:
I must start this argument with the idea of a first mover. All things that move are moved by other things. An example is the tide is moved by the moon, a planet by its sun, or a rock by something animate. Everything that moves is an instrument of that which moves it. A knife is the instrument of the one who wields it. If a series of movers and moved is infinite, then all are instruments and there can be no first mover. There is nothing to start the cycle of motion. The tide would not start if there was no gravitational pull by the moon. However, a song isn’t played by a violin alone. Someone must play the violin for it to sound. That person would be the first mover in relation to all of creation.

The first mover (FM) is immovable. There are two perspectives of a first mover moving himself, but the first mover cant have moved himself. The first is that the FM is mover and moved according to the same respect. This is a fallacy because all that are moved are in potency, which means that they had to have to potential to be moved. A rock is in potency, it can be moved (at this point, moved also means generated, altered, or changed). Now if something is moving something, then that which is moving the thing is in act, and something cant be in potency and act at the same time. The second perspective is the FM is a mover according to one aspect and moved according to another aspect. But this is fallacious because if one part moves and another part is moved, there would be no first mover, but only by reason of a part of the being. Basically, the uncreated is prior to the created, the creator prior to the creation, and in essence the second perspective would result in part of the FM creating himself. So it would be something already in existence creating itself, and that concept is ridiculous.

Other considerations are that all motion is perceived to come from something immobile. For example, a pebble is moved by a person, the person is not moved by the pebble. The person, in respect to the pebble, is immovable. The FM is incapable of being moved (generated) and because of this is not subject to the things that are moved (generated) are. Another example: the stuff of this world decays. The earth decays slower than human beings, and the earth also essentially gives life to human beings so it is of a higher order and therefore decays slower. Something that is the first mover and moves everything else is of the highest order and is not subject to the same things that things of lower order are.

All that has the possibility of being and of not being is subject to change (mutable). If a first mover is immutable, then he is necessary. Something cannot be and not be, it is or it isn’t. Anything with a possibility of being and not being must have something that made it be. Something that isn’t doesn’t know the difference between being and not being. An example is if you don’t know the right questions to ask, chances are you wont be able to get the information you seek. And if you don’t know something doesn’t exist then you cant ask about it. So something that has no being would not bring itself into being. It must be put into being. Now, that which causes something is prior to it. But if there is a first mover, nothing is prior to it or it would not be the first mover. For existence, the first mover would be necessary to set things in motion and that which is necessary much always exist. Its impossible for a being that has no possibility of not being to not be, so its never without existence. Nothing can be or not be except through motion or change, but if the FM exists and must be immutable, then it is impossible for him to have begun or cease to be and must always exist or have existed. Anything that hasn’t always existed needs a cause for existence. Nothing brings itself from non-being into being. A cause is prior to what is caused, so the FM can have no cause or he is not the first mover. What pertains to anyone in any way other than an external cause must pertain to him of himself. If the FM can have no external cause, which he cant because then the cause would be the first mover, then he must be of himself. And what exists of itself (per se) must always and necessarily exist and have existed.

 

[Guest]

Hello belovedwolfofgod!

You're presenting a variation on the classic Cosmological (first-cause) argument for god. There are a number of issues to examine here.

1. You describe the first mover (FM) as the first cause, or first mover, for all subsequent causes. Let us suppose that the FM did indeed exist and did start the 'chain' of causes. By your argument, there is no reason to presume that the FM still exists; he could have done his 'job' and then died, went away, or ceased to exist.

My first objection, then, is that even if the FM existed and started the chain, there is no reason to believe that the FM continued to exist after serving that purpose.

2. Modern quantum physics appears to deny the claim that all effects must have causes. Certain subatomic particles, like electrons, positrons, and photons, can come into existence - and perish - through spontaneous energy fluctuations in a vacuum.

My second objection, then, is that even today we can observe certain effects that do not have causes, and this appears to disprove your claim that all effects have causes. It is possible, then, that there are a great number of effects - not limited to subatomic particles - that do not have causes.

3. I'll take a big 'leap of faith' and grant your entire argument as true. However, there is no sufficient reason to believe that the FM has attributes similar to the Christian god. It could be that the FM lacks omnipotence, omniscience, and so forth. In fact, there isn't even any reason to believe that the FM has self-awareness and will. Even if he does exist today, what reason have we to view him as a god?

My third objection, then, is that even if the FM existed there is no reason to believe the FM has any characteristics of the Christian god - or even self-awareness or will.

Thanks for starting the thread.

 

[belovedwolfofgod]

My first objection, then, is that even if the FM existed and started the chain, there is no reason to believe that the FM continued to exist after serving that purpose.

The argument of the eternity of the first mover rests on the premise that the FM is immutable. So, I will try to prove the immutability of the FM. Motion can also be defined as alteration and change, which I mentioned earlier. So, with that definition in place, the first mover is unchangeable. I discussed in my last entry the two perspectives on the first mover moving itself and why they are not possible. Now, because motion and change can be used relatively interchangeably, the FM could not have moved itself because he could not change himself. It simply is. It could not have had a cause prior to it because then it would not be the first cause. If you consider this, all that has been created by the FM is subject to change because it had to come to be because of something else. It has a prior cause and therefore does not have the same level of perfection. If you consider a rock rolling down a hill and smacking into another rock of similar mass, assuming there was a complete energy transfer, the second rock would not move as quickly as the first and there would be an imperfect energy exchange. Now, this analogy has many flaws if you apply it to the total, but in accordance with this one aspect of things that are caused being of a lower body than things that are uncaused, then it works. Something that is uncaused does not decay. So if the FM is immutable, being that it can have no cause itself and things that are caused by something else being of a lower order, then the FM is of the highest order, and as such, has more power. Also because it is immutable, synonymous with unchangeable, then it would always have to be. Something that is put into motion is put into change. If the FM was never put into motion, then it was never put into change, and therefore cannot decay and must always exist.

2. Modern quantum physics appears to deny the claim that all effects must have causes. Certain subatomic particles, like electrons, positrons, and photons, can come into existence - and perish - through spontaneous energy fluctuations in a vacuum.

My second objection, then, is that even today we can observe certain effects that do not have causes, and this appears to disprove your claim that all effects have causes. It is possible, then, that there are a great number of effects - not limited to subatomic particles - that do not have causes.

I don’t understand this point fully enough that I feel I can respond well. If you could send me some links to the research, I would be able to get back to you. Im pretty good with reading journals, just not so good at finding them…

I also looked up the definition of vacuum. Which one are they using?

Absence of matter.
A space empty of matter.
A space relatively empty of matter.
A space in which the pressure is significantly lower than atmospheric pressure.
A state of emptiness; a void.
A state of being sealed off from external or environmental influences; isolation.

and your third point, I dont wanna jump the gun and debate a christian god quite yet... but is your third point basically questioning the existence of intellect in the FM?

 

[Guest]

Heya belovedwolfofgod!

Motion can also be defined as alteration and change, which I mentioned earlier.

This is not a complete definition of motion. A more accurate definition, from Wikipedia, is:

In physics, motion means a change in the position of a body with respect to time, as measured by a particular observer in a particular frame of reference.

It should be noted that the only 'things' that are changing are time and position. There is nothing in this definition about changing the object itself (except for its position).

So, with that definition in place, the first mover is unchangeable.

Non-sequitur. I don't see how this at all follows from either of the above two definitions of motions - unless you are defining the FM as unchangeable. But it is possible that the FM, if he existed, would not be unchangeable. What reason have we to believe him to be unchangeable?

Now, because motion and change can be used relatively interchangeably,

No. In modern science, change is concerned with variation and flux. These are not completely interchangeable words.

the FM could not have moved itself because he could not change himself. It simply is.

So you say. But what evidence or reasoning is there for this claim, other than this being the way you have defined the FM?

It could not have had a cause prior to it because then it would not be the first cause.

A large part of your argument is that all effects have causes - except for the FM, and only because you have defined the FM in this manner.

Because this exception to the rule exists, then it is logically true that not all effects have causes - the FM does not, certain quantum mechanical phenomena do not, and so forth. Therefore, the rule "all effects have causes" is demonstrably false in at least two cases - the FM and QM (quantum mechanics).

Therefore, because the FM and QM are both exceptions, we must reject the claim that "all effects have causes".

If you consider this, all that has been created by the FM is subject to change because it had to come to be because of something else.

Non-sequitur. Regardless of how something was created, how does that say anything at all about whether it is subject to change? What evidence is there for this claim?

It has a prior cause and therefore does not have the same level of perfection.

You are introducing a new term. What do you define as 'perfection', and why does the quality of being caused make something less 'perfect'?

If you consider a rock rolling down a hill and smacking into another rock of similar mass, assuming there was a complete energy transfer, the second rock would not move as quickly as the first and there would be an imperfect energy exchange.

Erm, no. ;) If there was indeed a perfect energy transfer, then it was a completely elastic collision and the second rock would move exactly as quickly as the first. In real life, collisions are not perfectly elastic - they lose energy due to friction and other forces.

Now, this analogy has many flaws if you apply it to the total, but in accordance with this one aspect of things that are caused being of a lower body than things that are uncaused, then it works.

1. You are suggesting that there are multiple things that are uncaused, which suggests that the FM is not alone in this respect. What other things are there?

2. What does it mean to be a 'lower body' than something else?

3. Why are caused things of a 'lower body' than uncaused things?

Something that is uncaused does not decay.

Have you any evidence for this claim? QM would appear to disagree with you.

So if the FM is immutable, being that it can have no cause itself and things that are caused by something else being of a lower order, then the FM is of the highest order, and as such, has more power.

Another non-sequitur.

1. Define 'lower order' and 'highest order'.

2. Define 'power'.

3. How does 'lower order' mean less 'power'?

Also because it is immutable, synonymous with unchangeable, then it would always have to be. Something that is put into motion is put into change. If the FM was never put into motion, then it was never put into change, and therefore cannot decay and must always exist.

Again, I don't feel that your definition of 'motion' is quite the same as the currently accepted scientific definition of motion. I suggest you read the Wikipedia article.

I don’t understand this point fully enough that I feel I can respond well. If you could send me some links to the research, I would be able to get back to you. Im pretty good with reading journals, just not so good at finding them…

You might be interested in reading the excellent Wikipedia articles on virtual particles and Bell's Theorem.

and your third point, I dont wanna jump the gun and debate a christian god quite yet... but is your third point basically questioning the existence of intellect in the FM?

Yes. I do not feel that, even if I granted your entire argument as true, that there is any support for the claim that the FM is omnipotent, omniscient, or even in possession of will or intellect.

 

[belovedwolfofgod]

seems we have a language problem. im using philosophy and you are using science. I will try and find a way to reconcile these two approaches.

 

[belovedwolfofgod]

Because this exception to the rule exists, then it is logically true that not all effects have causes - the FM does not, certain quantum mechanical phenomena do not, and so forth. Therefore, the rule "all effects have causes" is demonstrably false in at least two cases - the FM and QM (quantum mechanics).

Can we call the FM an effect? I dont think it is an effect. Its effects can be seen, though if it were an effect, it would have to have had a cause.

1. You are suggesting that there are multiple things that are uncaused, which suggests that the FM is not alone in this respect. What other things are there?

Wasnt trying to insinuate that there are multiple uncaused things. I guess my language was unclear as far as I add "s"s to things. There is only one thing that is uncaused in this model, and that would be the FM. As for the QM stuff, Im finding it interesting reading, and some difficult reading as well.

Alright. Lower order and higher order.
Something that is of lower order does not have primacy over something of higher order. A king is of higher order over a peasant in the social heirarchy. Planets are of higher order than animals in the natural order because animals reside on and are sustained by the planet. The sun is higher than its planets because it sustains those planets in orbit and if they contain life, it sustains the life. The sun came before the planets and the planets before the animals as well. Highest order would be something that has primacy over all else. It started all else. If the FM is uncaused and the first cause, and also immutable, then it has primacy over everything else. It is unchangeable and because its the first cause, it becomes the standard of measurement for all else. Perfection would be the FM because it is immutable and has created all else. Because it is the first cause, all things find their perfection in it. Perfection is how much it conforms to the FM. If the FM is of the highest order and immutable, and also the first cause, then all that has been caused by the FM must be contained in some way in the FM. A person creates something, and that something was contained in the mind of the person and therefore it must be in the person. So is creation in the FM. Perfection is defined as the FM and everything else can only be judged in perfection according to its order and how much it conforms to its conception in the FM.

Power is not definded as joules. It would be the ability to affect change. If the FM was the first cause, then it was the most power because everything else proceeds from that first cause. Lower order would mean less power because it has a lesser ability to affect change. How much can a dog change a planet? How much can a planet change a sun?

I will have to come up with a better reconciliation of the word motion, for as you pointed out, my use of the word does not conform to modern science. So I will attempt to find a better word, or word set that is more specific. But I do think in general that you know what I mean. But I understand if that isnt good enough, so I will quest for language!

PS: Sorry this took so long. I dont really have internet over school breaks. But Im back now!

 

[belovedwolfofgod]

I miss Cosmo :

 

[Novum]

I miss Cosmo :

Hi belovedwolfofgod! I'm back - just a different name this time. I admit, in some threads, I was a bit less than civil and not quite level-headed my first time around. The mods have given me a second chance, which I very much appreciate.

So, let's get back to it! :D

Can we call the FM an effect? I dont think it is an effect.

Why not?

Its effects can be seen, though if it were an effect, it would have to have had a cause.

Yes. Why is the FM necessarily not caused, other than this being the way you've defined the FM?

Wasnt trying to insinuate that there are multiple uncaused things. I guess my language was unclear as far as I add "s"s to things. There is only one thing that is uncaused in this model, and that would be the FM. As for the QM stuff, Im finding it interesting reading, and some difficult reading as well.

I do not believe that your model allows for the possibility of uncaused events - whether QM or otherwise. That's fine, but the problem is that as soon as something like QM comes along and shows that uncaused events not only exist but are fairly commonplace, then your model rather falls apart.

Alright. Lower order and higher order.
Something that is of lower order does not have primacy over something of higher order. A king is of higher order over a peasant in the social heirarchy. Planets are of higher order than animals in the natural order because animals reside on and are sustained by the planet. The sun is higher than its planets because it sustains those planets in orbit and if they contain life, it sustains the life. The sun came before the planets and the planets before the animals as well. Highest order would be something that has primacy over all else. It started all else.

This appears to me to be dangerously anthropocentric. I feel like the "primacy" of which you speak is entirely meaningless outside of mankind - it is something that we, ourselves, assign to that which we see fit. It's merely a kind of "value" that we attach to things in the universe that wouldn't be attached otherwise.

Plus, I would also suspect that there could be disagreements about primacy. Take the classic example of the chicken and the egg - which has primacy? Neither can exist today without the other (disregard, for a moment, that evolutionary biologists know for sure that the egg came first), so which has more primacy?

If we can think of debates like these within the realm of primacy, what does that mean for the concept as a whole?

If the FM is uncaused and the first cause, and also immutable, then it has primacy over everything else.

Yes, as you have defined it to be this way.

It is unchangeable and because its the first cause, it becomes the standard of measurement for all else.

Big non-sequitur - I cannot see how this necessarily follows. Why should we measure everything against the FM? Other than set things in motion, what has he done that is worthy of worship?

Let's suppose that, instead of the FM, the first cause was actually a massively powerful (but not omnipotent) alien. Maybe he had a serious weakness - he really likes strawberries and will do almost anything for them. Would this FM be worthy of worship? What if, in addition to really liking strawberries, he was also greedy or dishonest? Would we want to worship him then?

Perfection would be the FM because it is immutable and has created all else. Because it is the first cause, all things find their perfection in it.

Again, I cannot see how this follows. Suppose we have our powerful alien FM from above. He is clearly not perfect, yet he was still able to create the universe and set things in motion. The problem I am having is that, except for defining the FM to be perfect, I cannot see why he necessarily must be so.

A person creates something, and that something was contained in the mind of the person and therefore it must be in the person.

What about, for example, people with severe amnesia? Suppose that I painted a picture and then had a car accident that ended up damaging my memory. If you asked me about the painting, I would have no idea what you were talking about. The painting was clearly created by me, but it is not at all "in my mind".

So is creation in the FM. Perfection is defined as the FM and everything else can only be judged in perfection according to its order and how much it conforms to its conception in the FM.

Exactly. You define perfection as the FM, but there is no reason for us to believe that the FM must be perfect. We can very easily construct situations in which the universe was created by a non-perfect being.

Power is not definded as joules. It would be the ability to affect change. If the FM was the first cause, then it was the most power because everything else proceeds from that first cause. Lower order would mean less power because it has a lesser ability to affect change. How much can a dog change a planet? How much can a planet change a sun?

Your concept of "power" seems very arbitrary. Suppose we had a button that, when pressed, launches a nuclear missile. Suppose the dog in your example was in the room with the button. Suddenly, the dog has a whole lot of power (or, as you say, ability to affect change). It seems to me that every time we invent some new technology, our collective mankind "power" goes up a notch.

 

[JM]

Nice op, keep'em coming!

 

[Klee shay]

Is this where all the intellectuals hang out? :wink: Just kidding. Impressive discussion though. If only I had the patience to follow it all the way. Good to see a healthy debate.